A couple who felt a UC Berkeley site on the relationship between evolutionary theory and religion violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had their case thrown out by a federal appeals court. Oh snap! Score one for science.

It seems the controversial statements were

The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution.

as well as a side link to several religious groups’ statements concerning evolution. The question, however, is whether that constitutes an endorsement of specific religions at the expense of others.

The Clog hopes that linking to some sites doesn’t entail an endorsement, because that would be terrible. Lucky for us, the appeals court’s decision upheld common sense. Phew!

In particular, the court found that the injured parties, offended by the informational site, weren’t actually offended or injured … or at least couldn’t prove being offended was actually, you know, worth anything (legally).

Thus continues every American’s right to be offended by factual statements!

Image Source: Richard Fannin under Creative Commons
Court tosses local couple’s evolution suit [Press-Tribune]



Comments:
Dumb adn dumber said:
Oct 10, 2008 at 11:21 pm

“Response: Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. ”

Religion: Where does gravity come from?

science: Dunt no!

Religion: u can measure it, but cannot tells us how this natural force is created?

science: Correct.

Religion: U R useless .

science: I know. We just play with people’s head so they throw money at us. It is a great scheme. Like the website? We take a few years to learn some math and some terminology and sit and collect checks from the morons for the rest of our lives. They have no idea that we are a religion.

Religion: U just saw that study that says over 500 DNA nuclei have not mutated and stayed the same for 6,000,000 years. There goes you evolution theory — out into history.

science: Wow, that is not evolution. How did you get so smart?

Religion: Reading AP that covered the story by some top scientists.

science: Goof, so evolution has kinks in it and we think we own you.

Religion: ATFLMAO….



adfadsf said:
Oct 12, 2008 at 12:40 am

^ WTF??

“U just saw that study that says over 500 DNA nuclei have not mutated and stayed the same for 6,000,000 years. There goes you evolution theory — out into history.”

Actually, no. It’s possible, according to the theory of evolution, that Things can stay the same if these Things are fit enough to endure in their surrounding environment. These DNA nuclei, as claimed by this quote, then have not “changed” because they did not see the need to change. They fit their niches quite nicely. Thus, it does agree with the theory of evolution.



sethness said:
Nov 9, 2010 at 1:51 am

There are plenty of “living fossils” which, as adfadsf said, did not evolve because there was no environmental pressure requiring “evolve or die”. The Coelocanth (spelling?) and the anaerobic corals on the west side of Australia are very old examples of species that have not needed to evolve.

Dumb adn dumber’s insistence that these exceptions are proof that evolution doesn’t exist…are like a finicky homeowner pointing at dust in just one corner of the house, to prove that the housekeeper has not done ANY cleaning.

BTW, thanks for using my art (the DarwinFish eating the JesusFish, at the top of this page).